| Revision as of 17:16, 14 July 2005 edit66.252.129.190 (talk) →Fed up. The "pretty table" should be history -- certainly, at least, here.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:34, 20 December 2024 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,077 editsm Reverted edit by 210.3.243.147 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
Nothing article, not even a stub, one ill-chosen link and a naive question. ] |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{censor}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|date= 2007-03-18 |result= '''Speedy keep''' |votepage= Black people }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 24 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Black people/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Black as a Social class in South Africa == |
|
---- |
|
|
Not any more, moved ill-placed section from ]. Previous redirect was to ], also not quite as accurate. |
|
|
] 22:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1950, the Apartheid government of South Africa introduced the Population Registration Act No.30 which effectively forced the Xhosa people and other nations organic to the land to be registered under the National Socialist system into either one of four categories, Black, White, Colored and Asian. |
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This paragraph moved here from the article: |
|
|
:Blacks of Sub-saharan African ancestry thrive best relative to other races in ] climates. In the tropical lowland parts of the Americas, most notably the ], which were colonized originally by Europeans, Africans have displaced the Europeans in those regions where they were introduced due to their much greater tolerance to humid tropical conditions. This phenomenon is also observed to a lesser extent in the southern United States, where blacks dominate inland lowland areas and whites the mountains of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Act effectively alienated the Xhosa people from their collective identity as a nation unto themselves and forced the label "Black African" on them as a social and legal status. |
|
A claim that different "races" of people are better suited to different locales is pretty controversial, and might well deserve its own article. A few things are well accepted, such as having darker skin making one less susceptible to sunburn, but whether skin color correlates well with "thriving" in particular climates in general is another matter entirely. In these examples, many would argue that the demographics are due more to accidents of history than to people with more melatonin being partiuclarly well-suited to the Carribean. --] 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I haven't read this article in a while, but I'm glad you moved the above passage. It's absolutely ridiculous/backward. ] 12:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Act not only alienated the Xhosa from their collective identity but also from their resources and property as well with the implementation of the Black Codes from the 1913 Black's land Act and Groups Areas Act. |
|
== Proposal to move and merge article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would anyone oppose moving this article to ] or a similarly named article, where ] could also be discussed? As it stands, this article is dangerously close to unencyclopedic by mere virtue of its name alone. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> 05:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been the cause of cultural erosion in this community and has prevented the redressing of many injustices that were committed against the Xhosa people. ] (]) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I don't see anything "dangerously unencyclopedic" about the nature of this piece. However, I'm not opposed outright to your suggestion. Perhaps it would be helpful to see the beginnings of such an article (on "race in society") first. My first reaction to your idea, however, is that your suggested piece seems a bit overly broad and potentially ridiculously unmanageable/sprawling. Perhaps the solution, since you seem concerned about "whites" as a subject, would be a separate article in which changing definitions of whiteness could be explored. ] 14:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Is this text you wish to add to the article? If so, do you have sources for the above? I can add it if you do, and if it still needs doing. ] (]) 19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Non-African dark-skinned peoples == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Blacks" == |
|
Deeceevoice, of course all humanity originated in Africa. This is exactly why I don't think the article should imply that, say, Tamils are particularly more African than, say, Han Chinese.--] 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." ] (]) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Really? This older Australian (who doesn't want to offend anyone) truly finds it hard to keep up what's OK and what's not in America. When did "blacks" become offensive? ] (]) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I guess that calling black people "blacks" has the same kind of vibe as calling the Aboriginal people in Australia "Aborigines". While we might not see any real issue with it, the people it's used to refer to might have their own reservations about being called such. I will admit that America's increasingly common and almost impulsive "knight in shining armour" response to anything considered offensive nowadays is more than a bit excessive, but here, I see no real problem here with @]'s request from the perspective I just presented. ] (]) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I understand and accpt hat language changes. MY real question was, when did this particular change in acceptability happen? ] (]) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I dunno, when was the last time you heard "blacks" used commonly in everyday life? To be honest, I can understand why a black person might not want to be just called a "black". I'd be more than a bit annoyed if someone called me a "white" instead of making even a half-hearted attempt to refer to me by any other defining characteristic. ] (]) 07:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{midsize|I've no real personal insight here, but these things aren't binary switches. What is observed as a sea-change is instead like reaching critical mass, maybe as the direct result of many people becoming aware or changing their mind in a short amount of time, but likely just as much if not more some mere signal of preexisting perspectives catching on in the media. A thinkpiece, a sitcom quip, whatever—unfortunately those are the events people notice as regards these things. What I'm saying is there's potentially no answer for you—different folks have different feelings and different explanations. From what I intuit from reading memoirs, it was always possible for this choice of language to confer this particular meaning. }} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It doesn't seem particularly contingent or peculiar to me that a ]-as-demonym can become offensive. I really wouldn't read much more than that into it, it's not particularly complicated or particularly American. I'll steal these citations from ]: |
|
|
:::* ''Merriam-Webster Online'': {{xt|Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive. The plural form Blacks is still commonly used by Black people and others to refer to Black people as a group or community, but the plural form too is increasingly considered offensive, and most style guides advise writers to use Black people rather than Blacks when practical.}} |
|
|
:::* ''Oxford Learner's Dictionaries'': {{xt|Using the noun black to refer to people with dark skin can be offensive, so it is better to use the adjective: ''black people • a black man/woman''. It is especially offensive to use the noun with the definite article ('the blacks')}} |
|
|
:::* ''Dictionary.com'': {{xt|As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among ''Blacks''); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting ''the Blacks''), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is ''a Black''). Use the adjective instead: ''Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor''.}} |
|
|
:::* ''AP Stylebook'': {{xt|Do not use as a singular noun.}} |
|
|
:::<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why don't we have a picture of some black people in the info box? == |
|
:Note that the article says "can" apply. Actually, more properly/grammatically, it should say "may"; it doesn't say it definitively does, or that it applies to all -- say, Han Chinese. ] 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for example how the page for "<nowiki>'''human'''", or "'''woman'''" or "'''child'''</nowiki>" has a picture of what they look like ] (]) 02:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I'm not arguing about the use of the term "Blacks", I'm saying the quote "more broadly to persons whose ancestors formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times to members of other dark-skinned groups" implies that dark-skinned peoples outside of Africa have a closer genealogical/genetic relationship to Africans than lighter-skinned peoples do, which I don't think is demonstrated.--] 21:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Which ones? ] (]) 03:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Actually, that was an incomplete revert/edit. I've corrected it. You likely still will have problems with it, but the text now is accurate. It implies no such thing. It doesn't even ''mention'' gentics. The definition is purely about the use of a word, "blacks." Members of the groups mentioned (and likely others) historically/colloquially have been referred to as "blacks." I can't help what someone incorrectly may infer. ] 21:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Pls review ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I still think the text, though literally true, is somewhat misleading and reinforces a common but false idea. Why is it particularly relevant that dark-skinned groups had "ancestors formed early migratory waves of humanity from Africa in prehistoric times"? As you say, this is true of all humanity.--] 21:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I edited it -- again. I thought your version far too simplistic/sparse. Now I suppose people will complain about my use of "Negroid." (shrug) ] 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for clearing that up. Though the idea of "Negroid" has of course been incredibly abused, I think the link is relevant. Like many things on Misplaced Pages, this article puts a bit too much emphasis on language. There could be far more, for example on racism and the social meaning of "blackness".--] 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalization == |
|
|
|
|
|
Particuarly w.r.t. use in the U.S.A., should 'black' be capitalized? I've seen it both ways in WP, and I'm curious if there's a good reason to pick one over the other. (I also suspect that there are subtle political issues involved in the use of capital letters in white/White and black/Black...) ] (]) 10:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the most common usage is as it has always been -- "black/s" and "white/s" are lower-cased. ] 15:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==african ethnic groups== |
|
|
|
|
|
it must be kept in mind that in africa, there are thousands of ethnic groups. it seems logical to me that members of those african ethnic groups would have, in the past or present, interbred with members of other african ethnic groups. thus, logically, there would be black africans, who are, say for example, part swahili and part xhosa. |
|
|
|
|
|
of course, many blacks in america don't consider themselves as members of the african ethnic groups, and simply think of themselves as "black". however, i know for fact that there are some blacks in america who still adhere to an ethnic group, and it's language, culture, religion, foods, architecture, clothing styles, etc. ] 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Fed up. The "pretty table" should be history -- certainly, at least, here.== |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fed up with going through this with every single article treating black people on Misplaced Pages: the perverse need to insert an endless list of pejorative, insulting racial slurs associated with the group. No other ethnic or racial group on Misplaced Pages receives similar treatment in articles dealing with them. There may be a legitimate need to present such information on Misplaced Pages -- but it should be done in a separate article. The time for automatically associating backward, ignorant, disgusting terminology with a group -- as though it defines who and what its members are -- is long past. Time for this to end. ] 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Most wikipedians are German, which explains racism. . That same admin has many sock puppet accounts and stalks people out of racist motives, . ] 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
In 1950, the Apartheid government of South Africa introduced the Population Registration Act No.30 which effectively forced the Xhosa people and other nations organic to the land to be registered under the National Socialist system into either one of four categories, Black, White, Colored and Asian.
Want to recommend that someone with more access than me double-check this article to ensure that the preferred term "Black people" (or another noun as appropriate in place of "people") is always used over "blacks," except in context like quotes, titles, or the South Africa section where Blacks had a formal legal status. The US National Archives defines "blacks" as an offensive term that should always be capitalized and replaced with "Black people." TheMiddleWest (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
